A Modal Logic for Beliefs and Pro Attitudes

Agents' pro attitudes such as goals, intentions, desires, wishes, and judgements of satisfactoriness play an important role in how agents act rationally. To provide a natural and satisfying formalization of these attitudes is a longstanding problem in the community of agent theory. Most of existing modal logic approaches are based on Kripke structures and have to face the so-called side-effect problem. This paper presents a new modal logic formalizing agents' pro attitudes, based on neighborhood models. There are three distinguishing features of this logic. Firstly, this logic naturally satisfies Bratman's requirements for agents' beliefs and pro attitudes, as well as some interesting properties that have not been discussed before. Secondly, we give a sound and complete axiom system for characterizing all the valid properties of beliefs and pro attitudes. We introduce for the first time the notion of linear neighborhood frame for obtaining the semantic model, and this brings a new member to the family of non-normal modal logics. Finally, we argue that the present logic satisfies an important requirement proposed from the viewpoint of computation, that is, computational grounding, which means that properties in this logic can be given an interpretation in terms of some concrete computational model. Indeed, the presented neighborhood frame can be naturally derived from probabilistic programming with utilities.

[1]  Klaus Schild On the Relationship Between BDI Logics and Standard Logics of Concurrency , 1998, ATAL.

[2]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Towards a Logic of Rational Agency , 2003, Log. J. IGPL.

[3]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  A little knowledge goes a long way: knowledge-based derivations and correctness proofs for a family of protocols , 1992, JACM.

[4]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  A Computationally Grounded Logic of Visibility, Perception, and Knowledge , 2001, Log. J. IGPL.

[5]  Richard Spencer-Smith,et al.  Modal Logic , 2007 .

[6]  Joseph Y. Halpern,et al.  The complexity of reasoning about knowledge and time , 1986, STOC '86.

[7]  M. de Rijke,et al.  Modal Logic , 2001, Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science.

[8]  Mehmet A. Orgun,et al.  Observation-Based Logic of Knowledge, Belief, Desire and Intention , 2006, KSEM.

[9]  Jon Doyle,et al.  A Logic of Relative Desire (Preliminary Report) , 1991, ISMIS.

[10]  Craig Boutilier,et al.  Toward a Logic for Qualitative Decision Theory , 1994, KR.

[11]  Anand S. Rao,et al.  Decision Procedures for BDI Logics , 1998, J. Log. Comput..

[12]  Dana S. Scott,et al.  Advice on Modal Logic , 1970 .

[13]  Guido Governatori,et al.  Observation-based Model for BDI-Agents , 2005, AAAI.

[14]  Hector J. Levesque,et al.  Intention is Choice with Commitment , 1990, Artif. Intell..

[15]  László Dezsö,et al.  Universal Grammar , 1981, Certainty in Action.

[16]  Leon van der Torre,et al.  Utilitarian Desires , 2002, Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems.

[17]  Michael Wooldridge,et al.  Computationally grounded theories of agency , 2000, Proceedings Fourth International Conference on MultiAgent Systems.

[18]  Michael E. Bratman,et al.  Intention, Plans, and Practical Reason , 1991 .

[19]  Kurt Konolige,et al.  A Representationalist Theory of Intention , 1993, IJCAI.

[20]  Mehdi Dastani,et al.  Realistic desires , 2002, J. Appl. Non Class. Logics.

[21]  Ronald Fagin,et al.  Reasoning about knowledge , 1995 .